Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Proposal] Canucks taking on popular buyout candidates + a young RD prospect


Recommended Posts

Proposal:  Canucks taking on popular buyout candidates + a young RD prospect

 

I think “2 years” is the magic number here.

 

What do I mean?  I think if the Canucks are looking to weaponize cap space by taking on a contract that has only one more year to go, then I don’t think it’s worth it for the other team to bite the proverbial boner and offer a good and young RD prospect.

 

On the flip side, the Canucks shouldn’t be taking on buyout candidate contracts which are 3 or more years in length since it will cause us are own future cap problems.

 

Therefore, I think “two” is the magic number.

 

As I mentioned before in another thread, one deal that I would absolutely try for is

 

1) Eriksson + 10th for Lucic and Bouchard (IF one of the RD that Benning is targeting in this years’ draft gets selected).  

 

Here are some other ideas that have crossed my mind:

 

1) Karl Alzner and Noah Juulsen to Vancouver. Alzner has three years left and Juulsen might be damaged goods at this point, but could it be a risk worth taking?

 

2)  Dion Phaneuf + Adrian Kempe.   I like this idea a lot actually.   Phaneuf has two years left (the magic number!), while Kempe is a young solid LW’er.  If we’re looking for a young gritty guy that can possibly ride shotgun with Pettersson and Boeser, this kid could be our guy.

 

I’d probably stay away from the above Alzner deal as taking on 3 years plus a questionable Juulsen would likely be too risky, but those Lucic and Phaneuf deals would be highly beneficial to us in my opinion.

 

Phaneuf would be off our books just as we get prepared to extend Pettersson.  

 

Kempe-Pettersson-Boeser

Pearson-Horvat-Virtanen

Lucic-Gaudette-Sutter

Roussel-Beagle-Leivo

 

Edler-Stecher

Hutton-Bouchard

Hughes-Tanev

 

Phaneuf, Schenn

 

Markstrom

Demko

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We already have 3 bad contracts in Eriksson, Sutter and Spooner. Any more could be absolutely crippling. Also, with one more year left on his contract, I'm pretty sure Benning wants to make the playoffs next season. Having 5 albatross contracts won't exactly help matters in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JB and co have shown no interest in the past when they actually had lots more cap space/flexibility to do so.  

 

Doubt they will change that tune.  Team is coming to a critical juncture where Boeser, Pettersson, Hughes need new contracts for next season or in 2 seasons.  On top of that you have to  think about the future of having Horvat eventually extended and Stecher etc.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

Montreal has plenty of cap space. Juulsen is expected to make a full recovery. No way they pay a premium to dump Alzner. They’re better off buying him out. 

especially with Bergevin saying he would like to do that himself.  A few months ago he was talking of making similar deal to the one that netted them Armia where they bought out Mason for the Jets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fanuck said:

Stay the course, keep our picks - build through the draft. 

 

Stay away from other GM's garbage dumps - we got our own to worry about! 

Fair enough comments.  Two questions for you:

 

1) Do you not consider good young assets in the 20-23 age range to be good building blocks?    Case in point - The Carolina Hurricanes taking on Brian Bickell so that they could have Teuvo Teravanien.

 

2) We do have our own garbage to worry about, but outside of Eriksson, these “garbage dumps” won’t affect us in any way (ie being able to re-up our upcoming future RFA core).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

We already have 3 bad contracts in Eriksson, Sutter and Spooner. Any more could be absolutely crippling. Also, with one more year left on his contract, I'm pretty sure Benning wants to make the playoffs next season. Having 5 albatross contracts won't exactly help matters in that regard.

In my proposal, I suggest swapping Eriksson for Lucic in one of them (so it lands us Bouchard).

 

In my other proposal, I suggested the idea of getting Phaneuf (who would be off the books in two years) so that it lands us Kempe.

 

And that’s really my whole argument......focusing on that “magic number” of 2 years (I.e. all of our bad contracts such as Sutter, Schaller, Phaneuf, etc. being off the books *before* we re-up Pettersson and Hughes).

 

Yes - we’d still have Lucic, but he’d be our only bad contract at that point.....and his presence shouldn’t prevent us from re-upping the guys that we would need to re-up.

 

All the while, the Canucks Landing two very good young assets.

 

1) Lucic + Bouchard for Eriksson + 10th (if good  RD’s are selected before we pick).

2) Phaneuf + Kempe for a late pick.

 

All of Schaller, Sutter, Edler, Tanev, etc., being potentially off the books post July 1st 2021 (except for Lucic). Net result = us adding Bouchard and Kempe to the fold.  

 

Am I doing my math right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

JB and co have shown no interest in the past when they actually had lots more cap space/flexibility to do so.  

 

Doubt they will change that tune.  Team is coming to a critical juncture where Boeser, Pettersson, Hughes need new contracts for next season or in 2 seasons.  On top of that you have to  think about the future of having Horvat eventually extended and Stecher etc.

 

 

2 seasons being the operative word.

 

If the Canucks can take on a few bad contracts that expire in two years ,AND move Eriksson and our 10th for an even worse contract (like Lucic) + an upgrade on our 10th via a good young defensive prospect (Bouchard), then not only do we increase our prospect pool, but we also avoid cap complications..........unless I’m doing my ‘gut’ math wrong.  

 

Bad contracts that are two years in length. 

 

THAT is the key, and THAT is the magic number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CanuckinEdm said:

Lucic is a terrible guy to take in any deal he has a No Movement clause so you need to protect him in the expansion draft. Atleast with Eriksson we don't need to waste a protection slot on him.

 

If you trade for Lucic, it’s the teams discretion on whether to honor the NMC or not.  For example, when PK Subban was dealt to the Preds, the Preds chose not to honor that part of his contract (where he had trade protection).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

If you trade for Lucic, it’s the teams discretion on whether to honor the NMC or not.  For example, when PK Subban was dealt to the Preds, the Preds chose not to honor that part of his contract (where he had trade protection).

Subban’s NTC hadn’t kicked in yet, so he had no say in the matter.  In Lucic’s case he could refuse to waive his NMC unless he gets a rider ensuring it travels with him.  I’m not saying he absolutely would do that. But he has that option. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

Subban’s NTC hadn’t kicked in yet, so he had no say in the matter.  In Lucic’s case he could refuse to waive his NMC unless he gets a rider ensuring it travels with him.  I’m not saying he absolutely would do that. But he has that option. 

Oilers are stuck with Lucic.  Even if they added the 8 OA, Lucic still needs to agree to be moved.  That means Lucic will pick the team he goes to.  That means the cost goes even higher for the Oilers to dump him, because the market is likely on one team - us.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

Subban’s NTC hadn’t kicked in yet, so he had no say in the matter.

True he had no say in the matter but still the Preds chose not to honor that clause (hence it’s now null and void) once they acquired him.  At least that’s my understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

True he had no say in the matter but still the Preds chose not to honor that clause (hence it’s now null and void) once they acquired him.  At least that’s my understanding.  

You’re correct.  My point is, when the player has the choice (that Subban didn’t). They can chose to only waive if their no trade protection goes with them to the new team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

Fair enough comments.  Two questions for you:

 

1) Do you not consider good young assets in the 20-23 age range to be good building blocks?    Case in point - The Carolina Hurricanes taking on Brian Bickell so that they could have Teuvo Teravanien.

 

2) We do have our own garbage to worry about, but outside of Eriksson, these “garbage dumps” won’t affect us in any way (ie being able to re-up our upcoming future RFA core).

1.  Any quality assets acquired need to play - as do our own young assets.  There's less room/ice time for these quality assets to play if 'cap dump' guys are taking roster spots either with the Canucks and/or with the Comets.

 

2.  Again, these guys either have to play for the Canucks/Comets/or get bought out.  I would just rather draft our own guys with no strings attached.

 

Look, I'm not saying there isn't a case to be made for acquiring a cap-dump + bonus assets - I just haven't heard the right case (right players involved and their respective contracts) for this club yet.  

 

JB, from the start, came here with the model/vision of building a new core of guys through the draft and supplementing them with targeted, UFA supporting players that fill specific team needs at that time.  The LE signing, looking back now, was a mistake - NO ONE can argue that anymore - I believe it was done to appease Aquaman in an attempt at getting into the playoffs sooner rather than later for his elderly father, but it didn't work out that way.  

 

I believe JB's vision was to build through the draft and although we all knew it was going to be painful, I was completely on board with it and I think he should be allowed to complete his vision - he's close imo, but not quite there yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get where the OP is going, there is some wiggle room to take on a bad contract to add something.  However I’m pretty sure signer Jim will be back into the free agency market yet again to add something we need or another guy in hopes he will have some trade value at the deadline.  He just can’t help himself. Can’t do both.   BTW I’d take that first deal with EDM in a heartbeat, we won’t get a guy like him this draft on defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're not acquiring Lucic for Eriksson unless they add. Lucic wouldn't make the team. He's too slow. 

 

Eriksson puts little effort in the games, but at least he can keep up with the competition on the defensive side.

 

And the 10th for Bouchard is too lateral. I'd rather see JB make the pick than trust Chiarelli's pick from last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Strombone said:

We're not acquiring Lucic for Eriksson unless they add. Lucic wouldn't make the team. He's too slow. 

 

Eriksson puts little effort in the games, but at least he can keep up with the competition on the defensive side.

 

And the 10th for Bouchard is too lateral. I'd rather see JB make the pick than trust Chiarelli's pick from last year.

Doesn’t have to be Eriksson + 10th for Lucic and Bouchard.

 

If that deal is too advantageous to Edmonton (for the reasons that you stated), then perhaps we could give up something less than our 10th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CanuckinEdm said:

Lucic is a terrible guy to take in any deal he has a No Movement clause so you need to protect him in the expansion draft. Atleast with Eriksson we don't need to waste a protection slot on him.

 

Agreed that Lucic is a terrible player these days, but wouldn’t getting a young asset like Bouchard be worth it?   

 

Also - Lucic might suck these days, but he’s still one of the toughest guys in the league.  This matters come playoff time.   Think guys like Matheson and Fartkoniemi will take advantage of Pettersson with Lucic here?  I don’t think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...